Posted
by
CowboyNeal
on Friday February 03, 2006 @04:01AM
from the luddite-encouragement dept.

boarder8925 writes "Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life, was sued by the RIAA in Brooklyn federal court for using an 'online distribution system' to 'download, distribute, and/or make available for distribution' plaintiff's music files. She has requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."

This woman does laundry a lot and has no dryer, so she hangs her clothes to dry. When the RIAA said she was using an "online distribution system" to make plaintiff's music files available, they were not referring to a computer; what they meant was that she is often heard whistling copyrighted songs while she hangs clothes on the line; hence, "online distribution system." Typical slashbots rush to this criminal's defense when it is clear she was openly and shamelessly stealing music and she was caught red-handed. Meanwhile, the RIAA music executives are being deprived of a living (or at least of a third yacht) thanks to the lawless actions of such criminals. Eventually this will kill music, as the RIAA warned us about home taping so long ago -- why would an artist bother creating or recording new songs when any old lady can just come by forty years later and whistle it without paying the company that distributes your cds a dime?

...the only reason there aren't more cases like this is because almost everybody is using P2P.

Kind of like the old adage that goes something like "Discipline your child often. Even if you don't know what they did, they do." And no, I have no children. Yet. But it would seem clear that the RIAA really needs to look over their methods for collecting evidence. Didn't they end up suing a supposedly innocent Mac-user once, because they didn't realize that on a DSL or Cable subscription, you have dynamic IP? Maybe they need to be taught that *everybody* do not have computers, and *everybody* with computers are not using them to l33ch mp3s.

"Kind of like the old adage that goes something like "Discipline your child often."..."

OMG that is the most horrible piece of advice I have ever heard. I hope you were using it sarcastically, because if you actually did that to a child you would have the most horrible miserable child on the face of the planet.

Have you ever been punished for something you didn't do? You NEVER forget it, and you NEVER forgive either. It eats at you till you can find some way of revenge. I'll prove.... (most likely that I can do something really bad and get away with it, to balance out the unfair punishment.)

And even if they did do some minor thing, if you constantly discipline someone, they never learn to discipline themself. You never trust them, so they never trust anyone else, and they never learn to contain themself either.

At the most extreme you get kids like that elf on harry potter - they do something bad, and punish themself, then do something bad again. They never learn that it's bad to do something bad - all they learn is that if you get punished then the bad thing is neutralized.

In the old days people had a way of dealing with people like the RIAA execs. They grabbed them, stripped them, beat them, coated them in tar and feathers. In other words they made a public example of them to discourage other similar-thinking assholes from doing the same thing.
Are we too civilized for that today?

It wouldn't get the exec whacked though. He'd suddenly have union troubles and every last thing he'd ever done that was remotely illegal would have local cops investigating it. It'll all go away when he drops the suit AND pays a handsome penalty.

A bigger truism is don't whack a guy when you can extort him for some cash.

If it is true that this woman has never used a computer, it is clear that this woman must be a cyborg. How else could she have downloaded all these songs and reproduce them in all that analog bliss with a 3-note range? *She* must be the computer doing all the downloading and redistributing, causing the decline of capitalism and the rise of Godless comunism.

I advise that we send her ass to GitMo or Area 49 (used for cyborgs, not aliens, located in California, of course) for some serious probing- let Congre

Maybe she is 80 years old. Personal computers started to become practical when she turned 60. She has always been a Home Health Aide, and has never had to fill out an online timesheet or purchase order.

I am sure there are lots of people like that out there, just that us geeks are not aways aware of them.

Sounds like some one in her home used her name/credit to buy Net Access leading them to sue her rather than whoever used the computer. Or perhaps this is a case of an identity thef!

It is also of course factually wrong that she has never used a computer. People use them all the them. There are embedded system in microwaves, ovens, washing machines, medical devices, etc. It would be impossible for anyone but the Unibomber to have never used anything that contained a computer... of course they mean personal computer/PC.. well, they should say that..

I'm pretty sure the only embedded processor my dad (58) uses is in the telephone, and that's only because I gave a him a digital model with answerphone to replace his old one. He doesn't have a microwave, I seriously doubt either his oven or washing machine have a processor in. He doesn't have an ATM card; he gets money out at the till. Partly because he's a builder, and partly because he wouldn't trust an ATM card (and given this is a slashdot, are you saying he's *wrong* there?), not to mention that he'd probably find it very hard to remember a PIN.

As for medical devices, you generally have someone use them on you, you don't use them yourself, unless you guys in the US regularly conduct your own ECGs or something? (I'm in the UK).

He knows of the existence of email and has asked me to send some for him in the past. But he didn't realise that I could email someone while they were away from home.

Now this guy has a degree from Cambridge University, and speaks two languages fluently and two passably. So let's say he's above average...

"That said, it's amazing how many slashdotters think that playing dumb and ignorant of the contextual or common meaning of a word or phrase makes them appear really smart."True but it allows the discussion to wander into how many embedded devices there are and what is meant by the meaning of use.

Then you have the other people saying this person or that person doesn't use devices that have embedded cpus in them which then leads to what do you mean by use.

We were just talking about microwave networks to connect remote communities... and I was wondering what a medium-sized kitchen appliance had to do with internet connections.
There was some debate here, so thanks for clearing up that it is a computer....so, err, how do you get the internet onto one of them things?

I guess this OT here, and should go in as an Ask/. but any help would be appreciated.

Sounds like some one in her home used her name/credit to buy Net Access leading them to sue her rather than whoever used the computer. Or perhaps this is a case of an identity thef!

I was actually accused of identity theft because of an ISP ineptitude.

I moved to a friend's place some years ago, and when he decided to move out, he transferred his phone line and DSL service to me. As can be expected, the ISP did not do the transfer properly (even though it is a division of the phone company), and for about

My father (who is 55), had never used a computer until 2 years ago or so (sorry for poor grammar. "paster than past" tenses were always a nightmare for me). He just didn't have a reason to do it. Right now he's on the PC for most of his spare time, reading news, watching stock market (and making transactions), doing e-banking, searching for a new house (apparently that's not a task that might be accomplished faster than in 3 years), etc. I used to encourage him and now I have to pay for it. Whenever I visit them on weekends and try to do some work, all I hear is "are you done?", "would you please let me sit for a second?", "go help your mother" or "can you remove the snow from the driveway? now would be a good time". Last night he called asking whether he should restrain from logging into windows today (I can't get Skype to work under Ubuntu @ their place... some weird stuff happens). You know, that file-overwritting virus that's about to strike.

The point is: he's not 80 and he was perfectly fine without ever touching a computer as recently as 2 years ago. It's just not a thing that a regular person can't survive without. Yet.

I know... like, how the hell does she pirate music and have meaningless arguments with strangers?

You join either the Democrat or Republican parties and attend the party congress. You will get into plenty of meaningless arguments although some say the the patriotic music offered at these events tends to be a bit cheesy. If you want to get serious about meaningless arguments you can also run for the Senate. Be warned it is an expensive hobby and you have to have your moral backbone and conscience surgically removed.

How they managed to find this woman and sue her is beyond me... It just goes to show you that you can't get away from the RIAA even if you've never used a computer in your life. They managed to find one of only a handful of people who has never used a computer and sue her... I should be scared for my parents right now.

Oh, that is simple. The RIAA imagines that everyone uses a computer and shares music, and is therefore a thief. And when they have convinced themselves of that, they just have to open the phonebook and pick any name to sue.

Why would the RIAA actually bother to investigate what songs are downloaded and by whom? Too much trouble for them! Everyone has illegally downloaded before, right? So no one will ever notice if you just...

1. pick up the phone book and choose your victims at random.2. pick a few popular songs that everyone must have downloaded anyway3....4. profit!

RIAA: Give us the user of this IP address!!!ISP: Why?RIAA: We have the right to commit murder to prevent copying of our intellectual property under the DMCA! This IP was trading files! Give us the name or we'll kill you!ISP: [flips through phonebook.....] Ok, Ok...it was....Joe Schlabotnick, of 123 Main Street, Fukyusville, Montana.RIAA: Thank you. Well...not really. You should consider yourselves honoured to give us the information of your cruminal customer scum!ISP: Oh, we are....we are... [giggling in background]RIAA: SUESUESUESUESUESUE!!!! [Calls Joe Schlabotnick]Joe: Hello?RIAA: We know you are stealing our music using Napster! [whispering in background...What?...that's legal now....ok, then what's still illegal?......] using KaZaA, eMule, LimeWire, and Bearshare, all at once! You have no chance to survive make your time!Joe Schlabotnick: Huh? It couldn't have been me. I don't even own a computer.RIAA: What happen? Someone set us up the bomb!

Doesn't this prove something about the RIAA's investigative methods? Let's assume that the woman is telling the truth, she has in fact never touched a computer in her life, therefore she has not downloaded the music in question. Meaning she has been FALSLY IDENTIFIED by the RIAA's investigative methods (whatever those may consist of).

My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed, what does this mean to those that have already been convicted? Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?

Reminds me of my boss, who goes by the name of John Shuttleworth. Now, he lives in a flat on the ground floor of a house which he owns. He rents the flat above to his nephew, who goes by the name of *drumroll* John Shuttleworth. We call the nephew "Junior" as a rule. Anyway, Junior went bankrupt due to some bad business decisions, and suddenly John Senior found himself not being able to use his credit cards anymore. He only managed to get them back after several heated phone calls...

They did give him £50 (I think that was the amount) when they found out they'd got the wrong guy. I can sympathise with the bank though - same name, same address, must be the same person, right?

Yeah but when they come to break down your door they need a geographic address, not an IP address -- presumably the address you signed up for your ISP with. So most likely the actual pirate here signed up for an ISP using her home address and name.

The RIAA has already sued a lot of parents over the actions of their kids. So far, "I didn't know my kids were using my computer to break the law" has not been an effective loophole.

Well, if I remember the case about Brittany Chan (search google or slashdot if you don't remember) it seems the parent will get off. Of course, then they'll sue your kid instead, which makes it sooooo much better. Either the parents will a) be held liable for negligence b) pay the kid's bill so s/he can have a life or c) have a

That is what is really bad, because just about everyone violates copyright, from your parents down to your little kid brother. It is like arresting people for being terrorists because they had bomb making materials under their sink...as does just about every single person in America.If we are going to have laws, the punishment should fit the crime, and getting 60,000.00 out of some poor sap for doing the same thing that every other person is doing is just wrong. If someone was printing up 10 thousand copies

The only thing I disagree with is the lynch mob because we simply don't need it, society already does something much more effective: blatantly ignoring misconstrued laws. It's not even civil disobedience simply the aggregate of common sense. Imho RIAA lost close to a decade ago and have since been involved in a protracted harakiri as they continue to sue willy-nilly while not managing to follow their own rules and seeing major artists publicly state their support for ordinary filesharing.

I know it's little comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected by the death throes of RIAA. I know the justice system and most politicians are lagging at least 20 years behind society but that has always been the case and isn't any kind of surprise. If one tries to speed things up one should be very wary of doing more harm than good.

Rant warning!

RIAA really had/has no reason to fear individuals filesharing and should have jumped at this gratis opportunity for broad artist exposure and recognize the market for high-quality reasonably priced unobstructive digital formats. Instead of their centralized campaigns for a handful of artists they could have taken advantage of everyone promoting everyone for free and let the naturally popular artists rise instead of trying to manufacture them. If they had any business sense they would be actively promoting filesharing, making it easy for fans and casual listeners alike to support & pay those they enjoy, making it easy for artists and consumers alike to find each other and create communities. If they did all that they would be doing their job which boils down to having a living thriving music industry, as it is they're doing the opposite. They could still change course but they wont because they do not understand anything about their customers or the market. Businesses that have no clue about their own market disappear over time, I doubt the RIAA will exist in their present form come 2016.

Wow I've got to add a rant warning at the beginning lol:)

MPAA has tried to learn from RIAAs fiasco but the whole bizarre strategy of DRM, DCMA etc. is so fundamentally flawed that they can't have learned much. At the least they have not understood that the only people they punish with such strategies are their lawabiding customers and as such they're in practice fighting for "piracy" even if that's not their intent.

RIAA & MPAA shooting themselves in the foot is too much of a mild description; they're repeatedly stabbing themselves in the chest and have been doing so for years -- noone survives that but luckily it has nothing to do with the continued existense of great music and movies as eventually the cash flows will just end up being rerouted around them.

I'm eagerly avaiting the day a senators or congressmembers child/familymember is hauled in to court by the RIAA or MPAA, they share too. Hell, I'm pro-Bush but I'm sure there's at least one track on his beloved iPod that's "pirated" lol:)

RIAA really had/has no reason to fear individuals filesharing and should have jumped at this gratis opportunity for broad artist exposure and recognize the market for high-quality reasonably priced unobstructive digital formats. Instead of their centralized campaigns for a handful of artists they could have taken advantage of everyone promoting everyone for free and let the naturally popular artists rise instead of trying to manufacture them.
While I want to agree with you, I'm going to have to call you on that. I suspect they make a lot more money by grooming particular artists and therefore knowing where their money will be coming from. To use an analogy, look at the state of animal husbandry. In medieval times, it was not uncommon to let your pig or cow free range for food. It was considered cheaper than providing for feed. Nowadays, I'm sure people would argue that it provides for a survival of the fittest, much as you state your idea regarding music. However, what typically happened was that there was little control over your animal and its productiveness. Your cow might be stolen by bandits. It might be shot by an errant poacher (or an earnest one). Even when it survived, you had no idea what it had been eating and who it was breeding with. And average production for those cows was small. With modern animal husbandry techniques, we now keep the naimals penned and well fed, control their breeding, and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows. Right now, the RIAA has those penned and bred cows. They know they can milk those cows and be assured of a rich bounty because they bred them that way. And you're asking them to free range their artists? It's just not a smart move for them.

I'm eagerly avaiting the day a senators or congressmembers child/familymember is hauled in to court by the RIAA or MPAA, they share too. Hell, I'm pro-Bush but I'm sure there's at least one track on his beloved iPod that's "pirated" lol:)
Feh! Do you think their lawyers would let them get that far? I would not be surprised if they have a database of names which they automatically remove from consideration. At that, they probably do make a non-token effort to ascertain who's actually pirating out of the people they prosecute. It's only due to volume that we're getting these "never touched the Internet" people. If the RIAA were at all smart, they'd come out publically and state that this person was all a mistake and award her $500 worth of music from RIAA artists. It would be good publicity, the "we made a mistake and are making up for it" kind, plus it will cost them all of $5 plus shipping to do so, since they own the CDs.

we now keep the naimals penned and well fed, control their breeding, and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows. Right now, the RIAA has those penned and bred cows. They know they can milk those cows and be assured of a rich bounty because they bred them that way. And you're asking them to free range their artists? It's just not a smart move for them.

An interesting analogy, 'cause I think it continues:
Although the production quantities and profit have gone up for the farming conglomorates (from our moddern food production system), there is growing evidence [bbc.co.uk] that we are in essence poisoning [truthpublishing.com] ourselves. As an example, cows are fed steroids and antibiotics and these are then found [enzymeuniversity.com] in the milk. While this is good for the profits of large corporations, it doesn't do us any good. We can already produce more food than we can eat.
So, the RIAA is able to control music production to their own enrichment. The cost that we are paying is that the human spirit, the soul, the whole reason humans make music in the first place is lost. In other words: the music supply is poisoned.

With modern animal husbandry techniques, we now keep the animals penned and well fed, control their breeding, and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows.

There is one problem with your analogy. The cows in this case aren't the musicians, they're the consumers. The RIAA wants to keep consumers penned in and forced to listen to radio stations they control, to watch music television they control, and to buy CDs at record stores they control. We are the cows that

I remember reading about someone working for one of the big record labels in Germany letting something slip about the RIAA's tactics.

He hinted that it was in their interessed to create such absurd cases so their "hunt for pirates" stayed in the news. If nothing like that happens, people will forget the whole thing and start downloading again, as the papers will not print headlines "RIAA still hunting!" a few month after the first anouncements.

He hinted that it was in their interessed to create such absurd cases so their "hunt for pirates" stayed in the news. If nothing like that happens, people will forget the whole thing and start downloading again, as the papers will not print headlines "RIAA still hunting!" a few month after the first anouncements.

That's it! I want to sue the RIAA for deliberately trying to cause global warming!

Presumably the RIAA actually offers "overwhelming evidence" against the people it brings to court, which probably amounts to a fast-talking lawyer. I wish she would have waited until the last possible minute to disclose this piece of information before court, once the RIAA had its (marked) cards on the table she might have caught them lying through their teeth. Actually, I'm not quite sure how the process works, it's probable the RIAA needs to submit that evidence in order to accuse her. In which case, I

"My question is, now that this obvious inconsistency has been exposed..."

The page linked to is that of the woman's lawyer. "Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader. The fact that you're doing so, you're openly admitting it, and you're +5 is really quite astonishing. Well done, my good man. But in case you (and the people who modded you up) weren't aware, of course her lawyer is going to try to convince people that she's innocent. That's what lawyers are paid to do.

"Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?"

The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit. Some people the RIAA have sued have been caught red-handed. In other cases, there was a mistake. Again: judge each case on its own merit. This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?

See the thing about people who follow the law blindly and don't realize that it should always be followed in spirit not letter is that they act holier than thou while at the same time breaking almost as many rules.

"The page linked to is that of the woman's lawyer. "Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader. The fact that you're doing so, you're openly admitting it, and you're +5 is really quite astonishing. Well done, my good man. But in case you (and the people who modded you up) weren't aware, of course her lawyer is going to try to convince people that she's innocent. That's what lawyers are paid to do."

That's silly. First off Lawyers aren't supposed to lie. Yes, I know like any human they are motiated by money to some extent, but the original poster said "Let's assume" which means - well - to assume it's the truth. Given his statement if it turns out to be a lie then the rest is worthless. Like any "If..then.." statement the later clause is only relevant if the "if" part is true. That's basic programming logic and as a slashdot user I'n shocked you don't see this. It's amusing that you want the RIAA to have every case stand on it's own but lawyers in general to be derided. There is no reason to believe that this lawyer told the truth or lied, so for the sake of the original poster lets assume that he told the truth. In fact, based on your own logic you shouldn't have any rael opinion.

"The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit."

Really, do you truly believe this? If so, were I the RIAA, I would sue everyone. Those innocent would go free, those guilty would face the consequences. I'm not anti-corperation by any means (not even anti-RIAA either), but I'm anti-stupid lawsuit (nothing says the RIAA can not become a useful member of society and I wish it would). The RIAA has shown in the past a willingness to blanket sue which should be punishable. Your past actions should be part of the lawsuits. Of course, if you are guilty then what you say is true (because the prosecution has a vendetta is no reason to get off if you broke the law), but in the case of the blatantly innocent and negligent lawsuit it *should* be part of your past history that you are willing to blanket sue. It becomes important then. A simple "Each case on it's own" only works in the case where each participant is acting in good faith, once one side doesn't it needs to be punished.

"This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?"

No, after being the 100'th person who is wrongly accused and had to spend 10's of thousands in lawyers fees I would like the court system to slap the prosecution down. Wouldn't you rather that happen if you were one in a long line of wrongly accused?

"No, after being the 100'th person who is wrongly accused and had to spend 10's of thousands in lawyers fees I would like the court system to slap the prosecution down."

So you don't understand the difference in case types?

Your rant is unwarranted by TFA. The defendant's attorneys have (from linkage) "requested a pre-motion conference in anticipation of making a summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint and awarding her attorneys fees under the Copyright Act."

"Let's automatically believe something the lawyer said" is the last thing I'd ascribe to the typical Slashdot reader.

You've got it wrong, that's not what the OP is doing. What they're doing is automatically believing something that supports their own beliefs, in this case that the RIAA is evil and/or stupid. That sort of thing I see all the time on slashdot, and indeed everywhere else.

"Isn't it to say, if you incorrectly fingered this woman as a pirate, how can you prove that you accurately identified me as a pirate?"

The proper thing to do is to judge each case on its own merit. Some people the RIAA have sued have been caught red-handed. In other cases, there was a mistake. Again: judge each case on its own merit. This is how you would want to be treated if you were brought into court for anything, isn't it?

Well, one of the merits of the next case is that the plaintiff (RIAA) has

... I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down.

Yes, we could hope that. The same way we hope for it every other time they do something REALLY stupid. Instead they will most likely drop charges, pay fees, and make up some story about how they were the "good guys" in all this allowing this person to not be financially ruined. If it was a normal person bring a claim against the defendant, it would be thrown out, but the RIAA keeps a few people in the legal system employed with the number of high-profile cases they keep bringing, so it isn't in their (the court's) best interest to publically humiliate one of their sources of work.

In a fair world this would be subject to a painful (for the RIAA) counter-suit. But then again, in a fair world you wouldn't have corporations running around bankrupting whoever they felt like just to make an example of them in the first place.

Isn't one person counter suing the RAII for racketeering, as it's illegal to go around threatening to sue people and just settling all the cases (because the cost of losing makes it not worth the risk even if you are innocent [you can be completey innocent these days and still be sued for millions of dollars!])

I know someone who regularly gets parking tickets, speeding fines and London "congestion charge" tickets posted to him. This is, of course, traced to him through the vehicle's registration number. The vehicle in question is an old tractor, which lives in a hedge on his farm, and indeed has done for 20 years or so.

You'd think they'd be able to catch the black BMW with the same registration number as a 1950s Fordson tractor, wouldn't you?

"i'm assuming she doesn't have broadband either. what ip address did they use to find her? just goes to show how stupid these lawsuits are."

A much more likely scenario is that somebody else in her household was doing the file trading, and her name happened to be on the cable or phone bill. It's a very common scenario for the cable or phone bill to be in the name of an adult (typically a parent or guardian), while a child or teenager uses the Internet connection to do something the parent/guardian doesn

Can this work? The entire request to dismiss the case was one paragraph, with only one sentence stating that the defendant never used a computer. Wouldn't some investigation or proof be required in order for a case to be dismissed?

Actually, it's not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for summary judgment. That's a key difference. A motion to dismiss would *admit* everything the RIAA says, then contend it still doesn't have a case - so no necessity for evidence, because there are no facts in dispute.

Where a motion to dismiss says, in effect, "Even if you're right, so what?", a motion for summary judgment says "We'll show you facts that are so clear we don't even need to go through the hassle of a full trial." Then you provide evidence (usually by means of an affidavit or some other way short of the full trial-witness-cross examination thing). If the other side can't seriously dispute those facts, and those facts indeed add up to "You win!", cool - you've just saved everyone the time and expense of a full trial.

How many times have they said "Well if you don't want to get sued, don't download music!" Explain that statement, in light of THIS!

I hope the court really slaps them one over this. It's clearly shown that they're not doing the most basic of fact-checking. (I mean, come on now, for godsakes, a dead woman, and now someone who's never used a computer at all?) Where did they pull the IP address out of -this- time? (Never mind, I don't want to know.) This is a massive waste of her time and that of the court, and I hope they get slapped with a good bit worse then attorney's fees. All their suits should be dismissed with prejudice after this garbage.

Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?

"Okay, did I read the correct story? So she may have never used a computer, but I assume she is paying for the cable or dsl service that is likely attached to her television or phone bill? Or a child used her credit card to open an AOL account... And that there is someone in her household who uses the internet she is paying for to share music on p2p? That happens all the time in these cases. A kid shares the music and the parent is blissfully ignorant. The way the blurb is phrased sounds like it was written by Pravda. Is there another article with more details?"

THANK YOU.

I have no idea what the full story is here. None of us do. But what I do know is that the page linked to in the writeup is that of the defendant's lawyer.

It's the lawyer's job to convince you of their client's innocence. They don't need to be fair and balanced. They don't even need to be accurate, if it promotes their agenda and helps them win the case.

It's really quite sad that so many people are reading a statement by a lawyer handling a case -- and thus whose motivation should be clear -- and are just swallowing it like it's gospel truth. Slashdotters are usually smarter than this.

This has similarities to the Santangelo case [slashdot.org] we discussed last year. There, the mother of four denied that she had ever used a file sharing program or downloaded any of the music the RIAA claimed.

The Wappingers Falls woman says she never downloaded any songs and if it was done on her computer by her children or their friends it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it.

Ah, yes... the old "it's the fault of a file-sharing program for allowing them to do it" defense. I wonder how well that one will fly.

Apparently Santangelo is receiving all kinds of donations from big hearted Internet file traders but frankly it looks like money down the drain to me. There is no way she is going to win when she's already basically admitting that she failed to supervise her kids and their friends when they were using her computer.

As far as this new case, who wants to bet that it won't turn out the same way? The lady maybe never touched the computer, but what about the kids? She's responsible for their actions! Saying "I didn't do it" won't help if it's your kids, like what appears to be the case with Santangelo.

Parents are liable for the behavior of their minor children. In your strawman case, the parents can, in fact, be sued for negligence.

Yes, but that's because the parent has not been performing their duty of care - an offence for which they would probably be found guilty in my hypothetical. My point is that they are not guilty of the offence the child committed.

If the police wanted to prosecute Ms Santangelo for negligance for allowing her child to use the internet unsupervised, that's one thing; but for the RIAA to be able to successfully sue her for Copyright Infringement, an offence she didn't commit, is another thing entirely, and wrong.

Seriously, if she never used a computer then she didn't buy any media or software, so media producers lost profits. That's even worse than pirates 'cuz hardware manufacutrers lose profits either! Jail her now.

Since they first sued a dead woman for copyright infringement, and now they're suing a woman for the same thing that does not have a computer. I can put these facts together, and come up with this idea: The RIAA is really a ghost hunting organization. First the dead woman (a ghost!), and now a nonexistant computer (a ghost!). These clearly show their hidden agenda:)

Let's imagine 2 things for a moment. First, that she's an old granny of 80something, and second, that her grandson bought her a computer so she could stay in touch with him via e-mail.

No, she didn't download. How could she? She has no idea how that machine works. All she knows is "click here, click there, write text, click here". But what do you think happens then?

Search warrant, all her neighbors watching, realizing that the police is hauling stuff from her home. A computer? Oh, kiddy porn. After all, that's what you get to see on TV when they haul computers out of homes.

Granny dealing in kiddy porn? How could she? But then, she's always been the quiet one... you know, gotta watch those creepy quiet ones...

That lady better be VERY glad she doesn't have a computer! Own a computer, hook it to the 'net and you're already with one foot in the prison. But nobody cares when you own 10 guns and an artillery piece...

But also Bill Gates is due his $300 - $400 dollars for a computer operating system and a full office suite (plus anti-virus software) she should be using. What a thoughtless woman. She and her kind are resposibible for holding back the economy. Think of the starving Chinese children turning out computer boards and peripherals that are being denied their daily bowl of rice. Oh, the humanilty! Think of all those pimple faced kids in their first job at the local appliance stores being deprived of ales. And the ISPs not getting their share.
What a shame. This woman and her kind are criminals. Let's round them up and send them all to re-education camps and force feed them computer classes until they change their anti-social behaviors.

It doesn't even sue people to get them to stop doing whatever they are supposedly doing.

They sue them for the publicity.

This is worse than mere barratry: the more outrageous the abuse of the legal system, the more it suits there purpose. They'd send a spurious C&D to a deaf vegan paraplegic nun who runs a homeless shelter, if they could find one. In fact, brazenly baseless accusations are better than substantive ones; it gets the point across without the expense of a trial.

They're trying to establish a reputation like the La Cosa Nostra. And they want to use that reputation exactly the same way: to create de facto privileges that do not exist de jure, e.g. "You don't want to park there, that's Vinnie the Hatchet's spot."

And you can't call them to task for their misappropriation of state machinery to despoil private individuals of their fundamental human right to be left alone; not without talking about it, which is exactly what they want you to do.

I'll believe anything the RIAA says before I believe a person could live a life without ever once using a computer.

My in-laws (67 & 72 years old, born in Malaysia) have never used a computer of any kind, other than pressing the walk button at traffic lights, playing poker machines and playing video tapes and DVD's on normal consumer equipment set up by myself or another relative.

Maybe you were joking and I missed it. Lots of older people that I can think of would never use any kind of personal or work computer.

This lawsuit must just be a mistake since the lady never used a computer. If that's the case, why is this even newsworthy? They probably just messed up. It happens. That's what independant judicial system is there for.

For two reasons:

1 - If this is a frivilous, baseless lawsuite in which the sued person is innocoent (extremely innocent, if one can use such a term), then how many other lawsuits, even those that have been extorted... urr... settled... were also made against innocent people?

Greetings. I represent the RIAA. The song "la la la - I can't hear you!" is copyrighted by BMG, an RIAA member corporation. Your appropriation of the lyrics without permission of the copyright holder is in direct violation of Title 17 USC 101-810. Indeed, your transmission of said lyrics over the internet constitutes a distribution of copyrighted material, and your use of the "online distribution system" known as "slashdot" for your criminal activity amounts to conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. Moreover, the use of the "moderator" system to enhance the visibility and thus the distribution of our client's intellectual property multiplies the damages significantly. Please cease and desist in the use and distribution of our client's property or face legal action.